Telecommunications service providers are entering the age wherein new service offerings and technological changes occur on a frequent basis. In order to maintain a competitive edge, providers need the ability to easily manage and integrate telecommunication solutions that cover a customer's need for voice, data, video and Internet networks in a cost effective manner. Large customers and enterprises further complicate such solutions when they span not only large distances but also multiple telecommunication vendors. Presently the creation of such integrated solutions is a semi-manual system that is costly, often inaccurate and slow in implementation.
With the passage of the Telecommunications Act (“the Act”) of 1996, the United States telecommunications industry is in a state of radical change. Among other things, the Act requires that Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILEC), the regulated entity that owns and administers an existing access network, provide to any requesting telecommunications carrier (hereinafter referred to as “Competitive Local Exchange Carriers” (CLEC), Integrated Communications Provider (ICP), or Competitive Service Provider (CSP)) nondiscriminatory access to network elements on an unbundled basis and to allow CLECs, ISPs or CSPs to combine such network elements in order to provide telecommunications service. ILECs also have a duty to provide to CLECs interconnection with their network for the transmission and routing of telephone exchange service and exchange access. The interconnection contemplated by the Act provides nondiscriminatory access or interconnection to such services or information as are necessary to allow the requesting CLEC to implement local dialing parity, including nondiscriminatory access to telephone numbers, operator service, directory assistance, and directory listing, with no unreasonable dialing delays.
The provisions of the Act have demonstrated a need for competing exchange carriers to be interconnected so that customers can seamlessly receive calls that originate on another carrier's network and place calls that terminate on another's carrier's network without performing additional activities, such as dialing extra digits, etc. A CLEC can offer multiple types of services, including basic POTS, IXC long distance carrier service, ISP Internet Service Provider, VPN (virtual private network), VoIP (voice over internet), VoDSL (voice over DSL access), video, etc. Many of the more advanced services require access to broadband services.
Digital Subscriber Line (xDSL) technology allows customer access to broadband services over their existing copper wire connection to the ILEC. With DSL, subscribers only need to purchase (or lease) a comparatively inexpensive DSL modem and connect it to the existing copper wire connection. Other advances in broadband data services can be combined with DSL service to provide the subscriber with additional connectivity options. Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) are also seeing explosive growth, especially in the remote-office and tele-commuter environments. VPNs and DSL allow a subscriber to connect to a private corporate network over a public infrastructure securely, while maintaining high bit-rate transmissions. Subscribers are also beginning to test the waters with Voice Over DSL (VoDSL) deployments. This technology allows subscribers to run multiple phone and data connections over a single copper line, using just one customer premise xDSL modem.
The opportunities for CLECs, IXCs, and ISPs (collectively identified from this point on as Integrated Communications Providers or ICPs) offering these services are immense. Data transport demands have opened up a whole new set of revenue generating opportunities for ICPs. However, the growth rate and myriad of convergent offerings make it difficult for companies to establish themselves in any one market. To be successful, ICPs need to remain flexible, customer focused, and establish a continual set of value propositions and competitive advantages within the marketplace.
ILECs have developed different methods to allow ICPs to electronically place orders with the ILEC for wholesale products and services. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,104,999 to Gilles et al. and incorporated by reference herein, discloses that LECs use Internet browser forms, proprietary protocols and electronic data interchange (EDI).
In one embodiment, the Gilles patent discloses methods of using EDI for telecommunication provider retrieval of customer service records and electronic services ordering. An authorized ICP or reseller utilizes EDI to request from the ILEC the present services being provided to a particular customer. The ILEC uses EDI to transfer the customer service record to the ICP. In a separate embodiment, the ICP uses EDI to electronically order revisions or additions to service.
Much of the difficulty for automating electronically placed orders can be traced to the history of the telecommunications industry in this country. Prior to 1984 local exchange carriers (LECs) created billing and service order processing systems on a company-by-company, leading to variations from one to another. An example of an LEC billing and service order processing system is illustrated in FIG. 1. A service order that requests the installation, change, or disconnection of a service from a customer's account was required to feed these systems. The service order identified the service required, where it was to be located, what action was to needed, and when.
As is illustrated in FIG. 1, a typical LEC service management system prior to 1984 was relatively simple. An operator, using a terminal 10 or other input device enters order information 11. The order information enters service order processor (SOP) 12. SOP 12 causes the order request to be entered into order manager 14 and establish billing information that is directed to billing system 13. Order manager 14 communicates with the telecommunication services inventory system 15 to establish availability and reserve hardware and numbers to the order. Once inventory system 15 places required hardware and numbers on reserve, order manager 14 schedules provisioning personnel 16 to make any needed wiring or other physical connections and hardware initializations.
To identify specific services, the service management system of FIG. 1 uses service codes called Universal Service Order Codes (USOC). The USOCs defined each line's features and before 1984 were established and maintained by Telcordia Technologies Inc in a “catalog”. Although universal across companies, not all USOCs were available in each LEC. The USOCs supported in a given state directly aligned with tariffs filed with the state's regulatory body. Each billing system had rates associated with each USOC, the sum of which equated to an overall line charge. Since each LEC operated as an individual company, each had a local USOC catalog as a subset of the universal catalog.
Each LEC had its own customer support units that was proficient in the use of the local SOP, USOCs and embedded business rules. Likewise, operations were self-contained within the LEC and therefore the LEC had full understanding of the service order.
In 1984, groups of LECs were pieced together to become the 7 Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOC). With the RBOCs came new access tariffs. To support these access tariffs, new ordering codes were created, known as network channels (NC) and Network Channel Interface Codes (NCI). Network channels describe the type of line that is being requested of the LEC from the customer under the access tariff. Network Channel Interface Codes describe the features or options that are found at the interconnection points between the LEC and the customer or end-user.
For billing purposes, these codes were translated into USOCs, allowing their placement into the SOPs and billing systems. Both manual and electronic interconnection between the customer and the LEC occurred using the NC and NCI codes that were covered under the Federal tariffs. This allowed the customer to communicate with any LEC using a common code and rule set.
Although each RBOC could independently vary its ordering rules, all LECs belonging to the RBOC presented a common look and feel to the outside world. Deviations among the LECs were kept internal. This required translators and processes to take the necessary actions to map the incoming request to its service order standards and USOCs. The RBOCs each deployed systems to handle the necessary translations. For example, one system that was deployed and used by many RBOCs at the time was EXACT®.
FIG. 2 illustrates how the addition of access orders and merging of LECs into RBOCs dramatically increased the complexity of service management systems. Separate SOPs 12a through 12d for each local exchange company communicate with respective billing systems 13a through 13d. Manual entry of order information 11 by RBOC personnel is communicated to individual SOPs 12a through 12d, as needed. The new access tariffs are implemented with access order entry system 17. Access order entry system 17 can be accessed both manually 11, as well through an electronic gateway 18.
Many of the newly formed RBOCs wanted to consolidate functionality that resided in each of the LECs. Telecommunications had reached the point where many of the administrative functions no longer needed to be location dependent. By combining these workgroups with common functions, economies of scale would produce large expense and capital savings. Many workgroups did become consolidated; however, those involved directly with service order processing needed to wait. Applications were needed to reduce the complexity caused by individual LEC service order variations and consolidate ordering codes.
From the mid-to-late 90s, many RBOCs attempted to create these new applications or merge existing ones, but most efforts stalled or were abandoned. In some cases partial rollout occurred, adding another variant to the mix. The results have been less then optimal. For example, FIG. 2 illustrates how order manager systems in a 4-LEC organization was consolidated into two regional inventory systems 14a and 14c. Similarly, the inventory systems of the 4-LECs were consolidated into two systems 15a and 15c. 
In 1996, in an attempt to generate competition in the local exchange, Congress passed a bill that required the RBOCs to “unbundle” their local network and support systems if they were to enter the long distance markets. The RBOCs responded by setting up gateways to access their SOP process and billing systems for customer service record retrieval. The gateways that were created fell into two categories—Web GUI access or direct interconnect to the service order applications. By directly accessing the SOPs, the Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLEC) inherited the same issues that plagued the RBOCs. This has been a major factor in order fulfillment delays and the challenge for effective competition. CLECs, operating on a much smaller scale and margin, have insufficient resources (personnel, training and skill set) to cope with the variations in ordering they encounter as they move between ILEC regulatory boundaries.
RBOCs responded to the problem by creating gateways with a single set of business rules and format. Although that did not affect the different use of USOCs, there was an improvement. However, RBOCs started to merge and acquire each other as well as acquiring or being acquired by other telecommunications providers. Those phenomena only exacerbated and prolonged the issue—instead of a half a dozen variations within each RBOC, there are dozens.
FIG. 3 illustrates the nature of this increasing complexity. As more LECs are consolidated, increasing number of SOPs 12a-12g; billing systems 13a-13g; order manager systems 14a, 14c, 14e, 14g; and inventory systems 15a, 15c, 15e, 15g must be cross-communicated. Often multiple support systems for access orders 17a, 17d are also involved. Finally, mandated gateways sometimes provide overlapping functions that evolved from business partner relationships. For example, FIG. 3 illustrates connectivity issues for dual Access Service Request (ASR) gateways 18a, 18b; dual Web wholesale gateways 18c, 18d; and dual Local Service Request (LSR) gateways 18e, 18f. 
Order management and service provisioning of FIG. 1 varied by local Bell Operating Companies (BOC). Typically the Service Order Processor (SOP) had users input information required to start the order fulfillment process and the system would generate a paper copy of the order for distribution to work groups. This distribution was done via internal courier service commonly referred to as company mail.
The steps for filling a received service order are illustrated in FIG. 4. Beginning with the receipt of an order the work orders and information transfer from Net 1 Pass through Net 4 Pass.
Net 1 Pass—The order was sent to the assignment bureau for switch port and loop assignment. The inventory records of the assignment bureau were kept in handwritten books. The employee would search for a spare port and/or cable pair, (one that did not contain a circuit entry) and, when found, would enter the order and telephone numbers and mark it “pending” to indicate a pending assignment for a service. They would then enter the port and pair designation and distribute the order to the central office and installation center (Net 2 Pass).
Net 2 Pass—In the central office, a technician would connect the switch port to the cable pair and notify the installation center that the work was completed. The installation center would then dispatch a technician to the customer's premise to install the Black telephone set and wire the cable pair into the house. Upon verifying dial tone on the line, the technician would call the dispatch desk to close the job and complete the order. The dispatch desk would note the order complete and distribute it to the assignment bureau (Net 3 Pass).
Net 3 Pass—Upon receiving the order, the assignment bureau personnel would take the inventory books, erase the pending notation and pencil in “working” to indicate the specific inventory item was now a working assignment for the identified service. The assignment bureau employee noted the order as complete and distributed it to the billing office (Net 4 Pass).
Net 4 Pass—In the billing office, the CSR was accessed and updated with the new circuit information. By doing this, the billing system would capture and bill the new service in the next billing cycle, completing the order fulfillment process. This simple process supported 99 percent of all BOC orders. After all, the service we are talking about is Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) that consisted of a switch port for dial-tone, a copper pair from the switch port to the customer site and a plain black telephone.
For the 1 percent of special or “non-conforming” services, an order was simply handed off to an engineer at the assignment bureau (Net 1 Sp Pass). The engineers had at their disposal (or control) another set of inventory books that contained “specialized” equipment and facilities. The engineer would design the solution and in so doing, determine the special equipment and/or facility required. From that point on, the process was similar to the one for POTS, only it used the special inventory books, hence the name “special services.” (Net 1 Sp Pass through Net 3 Sp Pass).
Although the process was a simple one, it had some inherent problems. The most basic was ensuring the order was not lost as paper orders were moved from point to point and person-to-person. In response, a simple system was created know as critical date tracking. As discussed earlier, an order was issued when a customer applied for service. Then it was assigned, wired and installed, and finally completed. This comprised four critical dates: Application date, Assignment date, Installation date and Due date.
While different naming conventions have been used in different localities, these represent the basic milestones of the order fulfillment process. If the order requested a special service, a design date and office wire date was simply added on. This represented a basic project plan and was applied to every order. A standard interval time for each service was then established to ensure timely job completion, which allowed the sales team to project when service could be delivered to a customer at the time of application. But there was still a concern about how to alert the downstream work groups of orders coming in for planning purposes and how to alert them of emerging problems.
Again, individual BOC initiatives were put to work. In some cases, every pass was sent to all the work groups, which involved a lot of paper moving, filing and re-filing. Another method involved recording information from the order into a system that generated nightly reports for a Control Center responsible for the overall order. Clerks would initially enter the order number, circuit ID, customer name and critical dates into the system. A report was generated nightly indicating what was due the following day or two. These were distributed to the workgroups, where they recorded the work they completed or problems encountered. These reports were then returned to the control center, where clerks accessed the order record and input status on the critical dates. That night, along with the reports indicating the next day's work, reports for management would be generated indicating missed dates, completed dates, and in some cases productivity indexes.
By the end of the 1960s, billing, order entry, and order management (control) were all mechanized, albeit through input/output applications with little or no processing. An early solution developed by AT&T was a solution for the local assignment process and the outcome was Central Office Switch Management Operation System (COSMOS®)) application. Although COSMOS® did not contain the local cable pair inventory, it did have all the switch ports. Further, it maintained the assignment record (both port and cable pair) for the orders and circuits. With remote access costs dropping, assignment bureaus, central offices and installation centers were tied into a common application. The system would track the work being done from the various sites and allow field force to clear the clashes. COSMOS® was received well by the BOCs and its deployment was underway by the mid-1970s with millions of inventory items being recorded into its database.
However, during the 1970s, orders for special services began to dramatically increase. This led to development of TIRKS®, an acronym for Trunk Integrated Record Keeping System. Between 1984 and 1987, all BOCs with the exception of Pacific Bell were being supported in TIRKS®. When the BOCs became the Regional Bell Operating Companies in 1984, all former members shared TIRKS® source code. That year, work began on other systems that would directly interface and work in conjunction with TIRKS®. The first of these to come on line was the EXACT® system, used to place access tariff orders. These orders conform to the ASOG standards generated by ATTIS. With its direct interface, using the TIRKS® Communications Manager (TCM®), it allowed the processing of orders directly to TIRKS® and the return of status and circuit design layout information to the originator.
Other systems being developed during this period included WFA-C® (formerly CIMAP-SSC®), WFA-DI® (formerly CIMAP-CC®), WFA-DO® (formerly GDS®), TEMS® (formerly OPS-INE®), NMA®, FACS® Product Line, SOAC® Order Controller, LFACS® Inventory for local loop, SWITCH® Inventory for switch ports (replacement for COSMOS). All of these systems where deployed between 1985 and 1989 in the majority of the RBOCs. These systems are commonly referred to as The Network Legacy Systems (Legacy Systems). Although all these systems have undergone many enhancements over the last 20+ years, they are still supported on the same technology and middleware available at their inception.
One problem facing the Legacy Systems was how to keep all the data records correct across multiple modules. A tool was required that allowed users to identify data discrepancies and assist in the repair. The tool developed was TIRKS® Data Integrity System (TDIS®), which allowed the users' system administrator to run compares between records and indexes to isolate data errors and take appropriate action to repair.
Unfortunately, many companies stopped running the majority of these tests in the late '80s, due to misidentified errors in the runs themselves and lack of computer availability. The TDIS® ran in offline batch mode that interfered with service needs for a 24 hour a day, 7 days a week coverage for operations.
Recently technological changes in telecommunication equipment, personal computers and Internet availability have created a new set of problems in administering communication offerings. In the era of 99% POTS, a structured approach was acceptable. This is less true today.
Consider a DS1 connection: it's made up of 24 timeslots, each one representing a 64 kb clear channel connection. Circuits are assigned to the timeslots just as they would to a cable pair in the local loop. This is exactly the way digital loop carrier is inventoried in the LFACS application. From the application's perspective, it is nothing more than a cable pair8 that gets assigned on a one-to-one basis with a circuit. As a business rule it would read, “You can not have more circuits than there are units available.” This represents the inventory books originally used simply mechanized. If you want to add additional circuits, simply increase the amount of units available. If one increases the pipe to a DS3, you can create 28—1.544 mb timeslots or 672—64 kb timeslots. Vary the bandwidth size of the timeslot (increase/decrease) and the total units available for assignment on the pipe will respond accordingly. But what happens when we move beyond these boundaries into a strictly logical structure?
In this scenario, the entry and exit points of the service are defined, but its route and existence depend on the conditions encountered at any particular moment. The reality of data technologies such as Internet Protocol (IP), frame relay and asynchronous transfer mode (ATM), which emerged in the late '80s and early '90s, is that two or more circuits share the infrastructure unit. The legacy systems come up short in their support of this and companies that want to supply these services are required to add point solutions. Recently, the development and growth of optical fiber networks is further stressing the Legacy Systems.
Optical fiber networks generally conform to the synchronous optical network standards know as SONET/SDH. Pushing this technology is the ever increasing available bandwidth over SONET networks. Intelligent optical mesh architectures incorporating intelligent optical switches are being deployed in ever increasing numbers. The benefits of this new technology include automated service activation and inventory management, rapid service provisioning, tiered network restoration, competitive service differentiation and infinite scalability.
To support intelligent optical mesh network service offerings, service providers must rethink their network models and business models. In a mesh architecture, every element in the network is connected to every other element through an intelligent software-based network operating system (NOS). This means that communication between nodes can occur via many diverse routes. This ability allows the provider to create a wide range of service delivery and application possibilities. Adding this level of intelligence to the network enables rapid provisioning, rerouting and restoration of light paths automatically, without requiring the conversion of optics to electrical and back again or the need to reserve additional capacity for protection purposes. The result is increased capacity efficiencies and reduced complexities during service provisioning.
Traditional “Legacy” networks are essentially point-to-point collections of “nailed-up” paths that provide a working route and a protection route. Services must be provisioned on an A-to-Z basis with the routing between each intermediate node being determined, assigned and configured. The design and activation process may be manual and require operations resources to travel to the location of each network element and physically set up a circuit for service. The interval between application for service and delivery can take as long as 30 to 90 days.
In contrast for an intelligent mesh network, the process for activating service is less complicated and can be completed in minutes. A service request is made to select and establish a service route and a circuit is set up instantly through the intelligent routing and signaling software that exists on every element of the network. This frees bandwidth that would have been set aside for protection in a Legacy environment, thereby increasing the capacity for revenue generation. The flexibility of the mesh architecture, allows the allocation of only as much working and protection bandwidth required by the customer to meet the current demand conditions.
This also allows service resellers to only pay for the service they need when they need it. Meshed networks enable service resellers to take advantage of opportunities as they occur.
With all of these various telecommunication offerings and with the competing technologies part of their inventory (or accessed through trading partnerships), most large telecommunication carriers have resorted to specializing their sales forces, as exemplified in FIG. 5. Separate sales and support staff are utilized to support different segments (e.g. Small Business vs. Large Business vs. Wholesale) with additional specialized staff for digital services (ISDN, xDSL, Data Services). This has led to increased costs and competing order entry of common inventory.
FIG. 6 illustrates how an “intelligent order entry process” simplifies the sales and customer service organization for ILECs, and CLECs. A single, consolidated sales force enters all service requests into an intelligent service management system. The intelligent service management system prompts the sales force for required information and then generates all required sub-orders for needed services. Service sub-orders for intelligent optical mesh networks can also be included to address special requirements of these new telecommunication offerings.
New management systems such as intelligent service management system are required to attain the efficiencies of an intelligent switched mesh network and provide the foundation for new high-speed services. Using the industry's optical networking software, intelligent optical switching products are permitting carriers to build an all-switched meshed network. A switched meshed network creates a dynamic foundation for next generation high-speed services. Simplifying and streamlining the network infrastructure from the core, the switched meshed network enables real-time provisioning, automatic routing of traffic, and simplified network management. The meshed network provides greater restoration path alternatives, leading to higher availability of the network. This is extremely important in the event of multiple failures. Meshed Networks provide the same levels of service as the tried and true SONET/SDH network, while permitting providers to differentiate their new service offerings and tiered restoration schemes. Switched meshed networks allow providers to roll out new services in days instead of months. Bandwidth is provided on a “just-in-time” delivery and can be dynamically reassigned on the fly.
What is needed then is an Intelligent Service Management System that can streamline sales and support staff, reduce manual entries, interface between carriers and trading partners, and allow for bandwidth-on-demand provisioning of intelligent mesh networks.